Standing Committee D

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords]

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 31 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Accounts and audit regulations

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 27, line 38, at end insert—
'(d) Any draft regulations which are within subsection (3)(b) shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
 Welcome back, Mr. Griffiths, and I hope you had a good lunch. It is splendid to see you in the Chair. Amendment No. 34 would add a new subsection to clause 39 so that the approval of both Houses of Parliament must be given to any regulation made under the clause that creates an offence. We are concerned that the accounting regulations dealt with in clause 39 could create a criminal offence of non-compliance, which would be introduced by the Assembly without any parliamentary procedure. We hope that criminal sanctions would not be created in regulations on accounting offences, but proper parliamentary scrutiny must be in place in the event of such regulations being brought forward. 
 Although the clause mirrors section 27 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, the Government's argument cannot be for consistency, because the Assembly could create a criminal offence that does not exist in England. Surely the Government are eager to ensure that Parliament is involved in regulations made under the clause, as they proclaim that one of the principles of the Bill regarding criminal law is equivalence between England and Wales. The clause allows for exactly the result that they say they do not want.

Don Touhig: Clause 39 empowers the Assembly, subject to consultation, to make regulations relating to the form and preparation of accounts by local government bodies in Wales. The regulations can also make provision concerning the public's right under the Bill to inspect documents and raise questions and objections. The Assembly can provide that a person who without reasonable excuse contravenes a particular provision of regulations made under the clause will be guilty of an offence.
 Amendment No. 34 would make the Assembly's power subject to the approval of Parliament. The amendment would therefore restrict a power already 
 available to the Assembly by virtue of section 27 of the Audit Commission Act and the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001. Accounts and audit regulations allow for a different approach between England and Wales on interpreting non-compliance as an offence. However, to date, the approach has been consistent on a cross-border basis, which I hope will assuage the hon. Gentleman's concerns. 
 Before making regulations under this clause, the Assembly will be required to consult with the Auditor General, local government and accountancy bodies. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to fetter an existing power that the Assembly has in respect of regulations specific to Wales. 
 I cannot say whether you had a good lunch, Mr. Griffiths, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but my spies tell me that he had a busy time cycling around Westminster. I hope he feels better for it.

Bill Wiggin: I am glad that the Minister is keeping an eye on me. I was on my bicycle, but we should not extend the powers to make that an offence—it is a helpful and environmentally sensitive way to get around.
 I take the Minister's point that this is an existing power. He will have taken on board the equivalence argument that I made, so I see no point in pressing the issue further. We tabled amendments to try to get this issue right. Having drawn those concerns to the attention of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Documents relating to police authorities

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 28, line 16, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
 May I draw the Committee's attention to a matter that is of the utmost seriousness, given that we are debating the Public Audit (Wales) Bill, which concerns efficiency, economy and effectiveness? It cannot have escaped your attention, Mr. Griffiths, that my name has been spelled with an extra ''l'' on the amendment paper, so that, rather than being Hywel, I am miraculously transformed to ''Howeth''. There was obviously profligate use of the alphabet without prior permission. That demands the most immediate investigation on your part, and of course an immediate report to the Secretary of State and the Assembly. The question remains what to do with the extra ''l''. It cannot be ignored, destroyed or removed. I therefore suggest that it be donated to a deserving cause—perhaps to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)—so his constituency can become ''Lleominster'' and almost a Llan.

Bill Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his l's, but my name, Bill, already ends in two l's. He should be grateful for the extra one.

Hywel Williams: I must now turn seriously to clause 40 and amendment No. 46, which is probing. Under the clause, if the Auditor General receives a public interest report prepared under clause 22(5) or (6) by an appointed auditor that relates to a police authority and other authorities, he must send it to the Secretary of State and the Assembly. However, the clause does not similarly require the Auditor General, when sending a document to police authorities, also to send a copy to the Assembly and the Secretary of State. When receiving, the Auditor General must send copies; when sending, he is not required to send documents to the Assembly or the Secretary of State. The amendment is probing as to why there is not an equivalent requirement in both parts of the clause.
 I am aware that the Auditor General might send many documents to police authorities and that not all of them will be of interest to the Secretary of State or the Assembly. However, there could be a public interest test. After all, that is what clause 22 is all about. It deals with immediate and other reports of public interest. That clause says that auditors should make a report, and immediate reports are mentioned several times. Subsection (5) states: 
 ''In a case within subsection (3), the auditor must send the report to the body, and a copy of the report to the Auditor General''. 
Subsection (6) states that 
''the auditor must send the report to the body, and a copy of the report to the Auditor General''. 
Auditors must send reports to the Auditor General, but he must do so only in some cases and may do so in others. As the amendment is probing, perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to why there is a variation.

Don Touhig: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for how he put that point. In fact, I think we are all grateful to him: he was the only Member who managed to introduce some humour to our Welsh Grand Committee debate on the Bill after pre-legislative scrutiny. That certainly disproves some things that are said about people in north Wales having no sense of humour. He has a great sense of humour, and we greatly appreciated it at that time.
 Clause 40(1) already requires the Auditor General to send a public interest report relating to a police authority in Wales to the Assembly and the Secretary of State—in practice, the Home Secretary—as well as to the authority itself. The amendment would require the Auditor General to send to the Assembly and the Secretary of State any other document that he had sent to a police authority in Wales, irrespective of its importance or sensitivity, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. That means that the Auditor General would have to forward any document, even if it was of little importance or not entirely relevant. It could be said that he should pass on his acceptance of an invitation to the police ball, for instance, but I am sure that that is not the intention behind the amendment. 
 In cases in which information is not of public interest, it is more appropriate to allow the Auditor General to use his discretion as to what documentation he passes to the Assembly or the Secretary of State. I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously, but we can safely leave it to the Auditor General to decide when it is in the public interest to send on a document—our experience has shown that. I hope that the points I have made satisfy him and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Hywel Williams: Given that explanation and reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Studies on impact of statutory provisions etc

Question proposed, that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1—Comparative studies—
 '(1) Studies carried out in section 41 or 42 may include comparative studies involving local government bodies in England if the Auditor General for Wales considers it desirable to do so for the purposes of his analysis of local government bodies in Wales.
 (2) If local government bodies in England are to be included in any study under section 41 or 42, the consultation mentioned in sections 41(5) and 42(3) shall also include the Secretary of State and the Audit Commission.'.
 The procedure is that if there is any vote on the new clause, it will occur later in our proceedings.

Bill Wiggin: I apologise to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who will know that my constituency already has a Welsh name—Llanllieni—but it was generous of him to offer me an extra 'l'.
 New clause 1 would insert a new clause after clause 42 and thereby allow the Auditor General for Wales to extend his value-for-money studies to English local government bodies, provided he consults with the Secretary of State and the Audit Commission. The new clause would give the Auditor General the full power of comparative study, so that he would not feel confined to Welsh local government bodies and therefore unable to undertake a comprehensive analysis. 
 The Audit Commission in England will be able to study Welsh bodies, under schedule 2 to the Audit Commission Act, but there is no such power for the Auditor General. As the Bill stands, he must consider only Welsh bodies when carrying out comprehensive studies. Under clause 43, he must co-operate with the Audit Commission when carrying out value-for-money studies under clauses 41 and 42. However, co-operation with each other to assist with the other's value-for-money functions is not required. 
 Wales co-operates with England on Welsh studies, and England co-operates with Wales on English studies, but England does not have to co-operate with Wales on Welsh studies, or vice versa. I am concerned that, without the power to examine English bodies or the ability to require the co-operation of the Audit Commission, audits on Wales could be at a disadvantage compared with audits on England. It is not right that the Auditor General for Wales is in a worse position than his counterpart in England because he has to rely on the other party's good will.

Roger Williams: I, too, enjoy Committee work under your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths—

Bill Wiggin: When you are here.

Roger Williams: Yes, and it is a pleasure to contribute to the examination of this Bill.
 I support the points made by the hon. Member for Leominster, because since the local government reorganisation in Wales and the establishment of 22 unitary authorities, comparisons between local government within Wales have been made more difficult. For example, my local authority area is rather large and very sparse in population, so it is not easily compared with other local authorities in Wales. Indeed, when I ask people what they think is the most sparsely populated local authority area in England, they usually decide on Cumbria. However, Powys is three times more sparsely populated than Cumbria. 
 It is difficult to decide on a family of local authorities with which to compare the delivery of services. It would be helpful if the Auditor General for Wales had the power to make comparisons between certain local authorities in Wales and others in England, as that would be beneficial for local authorities that are anxious to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of delivery of their public services. I support the new clause.

Don Touhig: New clause 1 would enable the Auditor General for Wales to undertake studies involving English local government bodies for the purpose of comparison with local government bodies in Wales, but it is unnecessary. Nothing in the Bill will prevent the Auditor General for Wales from incorporating into his studies, for comparative purposes, data on English authorities collected by the Audit Commission. Indeed, the Audit Commission Act requires the commission to publish the results of its studies.
 The commission, for its part, will undoubtedly equally value its ability to use data collected by the Auditor General on local government bodies in Wales for comparative purposes in England. However, as a fail-safe, the consultative provisions in the Bill have been strengthened, as a result of Opposition and Government amendments in another place. The Audit Commission and the Auditor General will now be under a mutual obligation to provide each other with information for the purpose of making comparisons 
 between Welsh and English local government when they are undertaking studies in accordance with their respective functions. 
 The Audit Commission retains the power under the Audit Commission Act 1998 to undertake cross-border studies in respect of local government bodies in England and Wales. I hope that that is acceptable to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). Before doing so, the commission must consult the Auditor General for Wales and take account of any relevant work being done by him. The expectation is that cross-border work will involve joint working between the Auditor General and the Audit Commission, and the co-operative provisions in clause 2 are designed to achieve that. 
 The Bill does not, however, make cross-border working mandatory. That could unnecessarily fetter the Auditor General and other audit and inspection bodies in progressing work and, as a result, have a restrictive rather than facilitative effect. Under the arrangements, the Auditor General will have sufficient access to information relating to English local government bodies without specifically undertaking studies in respect of them. Hon. Members who served on the Committee on what is now the Health (Wales) Act 2003 will recall that we had similar discussions about the workings of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the health inspectorate unit in Wales, which are required to work together closely. 
 The hon. Members for Leominster and for Brecon and Radnorshire both talked about cross-border studies. The Audit Commission's ability to undertake such studies was emphasised as a positive in the pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. It ensures continuity of approach rather than a silo approach, which we all want to avoid as organisations can learn from each other. I reflect on my time as a county councillor in Gwent. The cross-border comparative studies that were undertaken among Gwent, Mid-Glamorgan, Durham and Nottingham were greatly beneficial in informing the county council and its audit family in devising and implementing policies. 
 The Bill fosters cross-border co-operation between the Audit Commission and the Auditor General. Having explained that, I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster will not press his new clause.

Bill Wiggin: First, I thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire for his support for the new clause. We share the concern that the Auditor General will not have the same cross-border abilities that the Audit Commission has, which the Minister said clearly in his reply is true. He also emphasised that the Auditor General would be able to use Audit Commission information, but will the Auditor General also be able to ask the commission to conduct the research that he would be able to do himself if new clause 1 were accepted? My understanding is that the Auditor General will have access to information but, if the Audit Commission were less than helpful, would not be able to conduct inquiries himself. I am sure that that will not happen, but I would be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on that.
 I can see that divine inspiration is on its way to the Minister, so I will continue on one point. Is the Audit Commission as accountable to the Assembly as the Auditor General? The depth and ability of the Auditor General may be restrained, so I would be grateful if the Minister answered that question.

Don Touhig: The Auditor General has the power to make comparisons between English and Welsh bodies. He will be able to use the information collected by the Audit Commission on English bodies to inform and facilitate his own researches, audits and investigations. The Auditor General cannot oblige the Audit Commission to obtain information on commission, but again I stress our hope, which is shared by colleagues in the Assembly, the Audit Commission and the Auditor General's office, that there will be close cross-border working so that we can deliver the best for the audit service and public bodies that are being audited in both England and Wales.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As I suspected, the Audit Commission does not have to be accountable to the Auditor General. That is a shame. It would have been one of the advantages Wales might have enjoyed. Like the Minister, I am quite calm about relying on the good nature of the Audit Commission to provide the Auditor General for Wales with the information that he may need. We do not need to press this further. This is a missed opportunity but there is time before the Bill becomes law for the Government to reconsider the matter. I suspect that they will remain satisfied with the good nature of the Audit Commission.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Studies at request of local government bodies in Wales

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 30, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
 The clause deals with the recommendations to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness at the request of local government bodies. Subsection (2) states that associations of employees must be consulted by the local authority before making the request for a study. To consult unions before a study, regardless of whether the study affects employees, seems unnecessary and could cause employees needless worry. Could the Minister explain the rationale behind the subsection?

Don Touhig: Amendment No. 35 would remove the requirement for a local government body in Wales to consult appropriate associations of employees before making a request to the Auditor General for him to undertake or promote an economy, efficiency and
 effectiveness study in respect of it. Consultation is existing practice and therefore the amendment would be seen as draconian. It could seriously impede the conduct of a study and, as a consequence, devalue the results. Moreover, the absence of any requirement to consult would be in stark contrast to continuing practice in England.
 This measure gives employee organisations the opportunity to express views that would be valuable to the conduct of the study, even if the association had concerns over its conduct. Such concerns may in themselves be informative to the study. I think the hon. Member will agree that consultation, even where an association may not necessarily agree with its rationale, is more positive than no consultation at all. I therefore believe that the amendment would be detrimental.

Bill Wiggin: The important thing is that the Auditor General may consult, and having consulted will go ahead irrespective of the results. While I agree that any consultation is better than none, this is perhaps not the tidiest bit of the Bill. It could cause employees some needless worry. However, I take the point that the purpose is to allow some consultation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Benefit administration studies for Secretary of State

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in
clause 45, page 30, line 22, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
 This amendment is similar to amendment No. 46 in the name of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, and would replace the word ''may'' with ''must'' in subsection (6). It would make it a requirement of the Secretary of State to publish a study of benefit administration carried out under the clause. It should be obligatory for the outcome of a study into benefit administration to be published, rather than it being left to the Secretary of State's discretion. We would be content with the discretion being with the Auditor General, but it should not be with the Secretary of State. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's justification.

Don Touhig: Clause 45 relates specifically to benefit administration studies requested by the Secretary of State as opposed to a study that the Auditor General decides to undertake under clause 41. Amendment No. 36 would remove any discretion the Auditor General has, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, to publish a report of a study designed to improve the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and quality of performance in housing and council tax benefit administration by local councils in Wales.
 In deciding whether a report requested specifically by the Secretary of State should be published, there is a need to consider its contents and the circumstances 
 of the study to which it relates. The report may, for instance, include information that might be helpful to fraudsters by highlighting a weakness in the benefits system. It may contain certain confidential information or identify individuals. 
 In practice, such reports are very likely to be published. For example, the benefit fraud inspectorate publishes reports although there is no requirement for it to do so. An absolute requirement to publish a report would be inadvisable given that studies undertaken under clause 45 are likely to be more detailed than those under clause 41. The potentially sensitive content, to which I have referred, and the fact that the study could relate to a single authority, support my arguments.

Bill Wiggin: I suspect that the Minister, like me, has faith in the current Secretary of State—in my role, I have faith in at least one future Secretary of State. The purpose behind the clause is to give discretion, and I accept that avoiding fraud is essential. I am surprised that the transparency that the amendment seeks to bring about is not factored into the Bill more, but I recognise that the amendment is not necessarily the best way to do so. As we legislate, we should continue to focus on ensuring that there is proper transparency at every opportunity.

Don Touhig: Before the hon. Gentleman considers whether to withdraw the amendment, I advise him that the Auditor General can produce more general studies relating to benefit administration under clause 41 and would have to publish that information.

Bill Wiggin: That was a kind and helpful intervention. I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity with which he has dealt with the issue, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Performance standards: relevant bodies

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 30, line 39, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— 
'(e) a fire and rescue authority in Wales constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 46, page 30, line 39, at end insert—
'(f) a port health authority;
(g) a conservation board;
(h) a local probation board;
(i) an internal drainage board'.
 Amendment No. 31 relates to amendments Nos. 29 and 30, which we discussed earlier. It is a probing amendment, to discover why those four types of body have been excluded. Could the Minister explain why a local probation board is not included in the bodies set out in clause 46, which will be covered by clauses 47 to 49?

Don Touhig: The amendment would extend the requirement to comply with the provisions in respect of the publication of information related to performance standards set out in clauses 47 to 49 to all the local government bodies listed in clause 12(1). The practical effect would be to require port health authorities, conservation boards, local probation boards and internal drainage boards to publish such information for comparative purposes. Extending the requirement to publish performance standards information to a range of Government bodies specified in clause 12(1) would risk imposing an unnecessary burden on comparatively small local government bodies with a limited range of functions, for which comparison may be difficult and not particularly informative.
 Extending the scope of the performance standards provision in the Bill would also cut across the discretion of the National Assembly. As drafted, the clause gives the Assembly the power to add to the list of bodies not currently covered by clauses 47 to 49. There is some leeway for change in the future, as the hon. Gentleman accepted in an earlier debate, so I ask him to reflect on the amendment and to consider withdrawing it.

Bill Wiggin: Ever since I entered the House I have been allergic to red tape and increasing burdens, even on Government bodies. The Minister made some valid points; as he rightly said, we have been over this ground before. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Publication of information as to standards of performance

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 31, line 15, at end insert
'and may include references to standards of performance achieved by similar authorities outside Wales'.
 We are going over ground that we may have covered before. The amendment relates to the publication of standards of performance by local authorities. It would enable comparisons to be made between the standards in Welsh authorities and similar authorities elsewhere in the UK, which would give access to more comparative data. The amendment would put such comparators beyond doubt, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Don Touhig: After wide-ranging consultation, the Audit Commission concluded that it would not exercise its powers under sections 44 and 46 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to require the publication of performance indicators, in recognition that it would be best to focus on the development of statutory best-value performance indicators that were set by the National Assembly under the Local Government Act 1999.
 The commission has worked with the Assembly in developing a robust performance management framework for best value. The commission retains the power to require publication, however, and will keep the position under review. It is therefore appropriate to retain the powers for the Auditor General in the Bill, so as not to close off future options. 
 Amendment No. 37 would raise ambiguities concerning what a particular local government body regards as being a similar authority. It could be open to the Auditor General for Wales to publish his own comparisons in the form of section 41 studies, which could include comparative information available on English or other local authorities which, on an objective basis, are considered to have similar profiles. Under section 6 of the Local Government Act 1999, best value authorities must publish an annual performance plan, known in Wales as an improvement plan. The same requirement applies in England. The publication of such plans would allow cross-border comparisons if authorities so chose. For that reason, the amendment would not achieve what the hon. Gentleman intended, and I invite him to withdraw it.

Bill Wiggin: I listened carefully to the Minister, but I am not quite sure that I have got what I was after in this case. Comparisons have been made by reference to the criteria of cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The amendment would add the words:
''and may include references to standards of performance achieved by similar authorities outside Wales.'' 
I am happy to accept the Minister's criticism that the concept of ''similar authorities'' could cause some difficulty; I have always maintained that my drafting, although well intentioned, is not perfect. However, the purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that people do not invent their own standards. The references to the criteria of cost, economy, effectiveness and efficiency suggest that that is what the Government want: they want proper comparison and standards, and they are right to do so. However, unless comparisons are made outside Wales, the Auditor General's job will be more difficult. 
 As I said earlier, I believe that the Auditor General will have access to information from the Audit Commission, so it should be possible for him to carry out those comparative studies. I hope that the Minister will tell me that that is what will happen—and once that is on the record, his statement can stand instead of my amendment.

Don Touhig: As I said, it would be open to the Auditor General for Wales to publish his own comparisons, in the form of section 41 studies. That could include the comparative information available on English or other local authorities. I think that that addresses the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The facility is there for the Auditor General to do so, but we do not believe it to be appropriate to accept the amendment, for the reasons that I gave.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Given that the Auditor General will wish to make comparisons with similar authorities elsewhere, we do not need to press the amendment to a vote. I hope that that is how things will proceed, although there is always the possibility that the Auditor General may choose to do something completely different; he has the flexibility to do so. However, the Minister's criticism of my amendment suggests that it might not address that eventuality, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Permitted methods of publishing information under section 47

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 32, line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) The relevant body may publish the information electronically in any way which is accessible by local government electors of the body.'.
 Clause 48 is concerned with the methods of publishing information about standards and performance under clause 47. The amendment would insert a new subsection to allow local authorities to publish information electronically. I am aware that the drafting of the clause is based on the Audit Commission Act 1998, and it is surprising that although that Act is hardly more than five years old, it does not refer to electronic publishing. I do not see any danger in allowing electronic publishing, so I wait with excitement to see what the Minister will have against this constructive amendment.

Don Touhig: Shall I e-mail the hon. Gentleman?

Bill Wiggin: E-mail the whole Committee.

Don Touhig: Clause 48 sets out the way in which a relevant body is permitted to publish information required by a direction made under clause 47—by publication
''in a newspaper which is— 
 (a) printed for sale, and 
 (b) circulating in its area.'' 
Amendment No. 42 would enable a body to publish information on standards of performance electronically in a way that is accessible to its electors. It would also, however, give the body the option of using the electronic medium instead of a local newspaper, not simply as an additional means of communication. 
 Electronic communication through e-mail and the internet has made huge advances in recent years. However, there is still not universal access to the internet, and publication in a newspaper is still the most reliable way of making information available to electors. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent local government bodies from using electronic methods of publication in addition to the method of publication already permitted by the clause. That would not 
 require an amendment to the Bill.I am sympathetic to the aim of disseminating information as effectively as possible through the use of information technology, but at this stage, its use as the sole means of communication is premature.

Bill Wiggin: I am sorry to hear that the Minister has such a downer on electronic communication. One of the Achilles heels in this debate is the ''printed for sale'' element. If we are talking about releasing information, we must keep our eye firmly on the ball: not everybody will want to pay for that information. The amendment was a constructive way of allowing it to be accessible without charge. The point that the Minister made about not everybody having access to the internet is fair, and I suspect that probably the best thing to do now is to leave the matter with the Government and hope that they will amend the Bill in their own time.

Don Touhig: May I help by clarifying things a little further? By ''permitted methods of publication'', clause 48 does not mean that no additional means are permitted; it simply means that publication by the permitted method is a mandatory minimum. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. He will recognise that, as the e-Minister, I would not want to close the door on new technology, but we must recognise that such technology is not universally available. Local authorities publish many things in local newspapers, and that is often the most effective way of getting information out to their electorate.

Bill Wiggin: That is helpful. I know that the Minister surfs my website regularly, and has made many comments about it. He will recall that he teased me mercilessly for not having a picture of my leader on it.

Chris Ruane: Which one? There are so many.

Bill Wiggin: I now have a picture of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on it. When I had the photograph taken, I mentioned it to him, to which he replied that the Minister was welcome to have his photograph taken with the Leader of the Opposition and put it on his website, for all the good it would do him. That was a generous offer.

Don Touhig: We welcome Leaders of Opposition parties to my parliamentary constituency. When the leader of Plaid Cymru came to my constituency there was a 37 per cent. swing to Labour in a council by-election. Please come.

Bill Wiggin: That is a dangerous but generous offer from the Minister. As the Leader of the Opposition is Welsh, he may well have visited, and will visit again. I am sure that the local people will look forward to that with great excitement, as perhaps they did not when previous leaders of other parties have visited.
 Returning to the amendment, I take the Minister's point and I hope that the information will be published electronically as well, because that will give greater transparency and will allow those who have access to 
 the internet to find the information that they need more easily. We have now exhausted the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Best value audit and inspections

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 43, leave out line 11 and insert— 
'(d) a fire and rescue authority in Wales constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies.'.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in schedule 1, page 43, leave out lines 26 to 32.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 40, in schedule 1, page 46, line 24, leave out
', and in deciding whether to do so,'.

Bill Wiggin: Amendment No. 39 would delete subsection (4) of proposed new section 2A of the Local Government Act 1999. That section, which appears in paragraph 3 of schedule 1, deals with the best value audit for Wales. This is a probing amendment to find out how the Government think that it will work in practice to exempt certain best value authorities from a functional duty. Amendment No. 40 would delete the words ''and in deciding whether to do so'' from subsection (4) of proposed new section 4A, as inserted by paragraph 9.
 The wording implies that the Auditor General has the choice of whether to carry out an inspection of a best value authority, but under subsection (2), the Secretary of State may direct him to carry out an inspection, with which the Auditor General must comply. How, therefore, can the Auditor General have the choice to decide whether to do so, when he is under a compulsory direction?

Don Touhig: Amendment No. 39 relates to the Auditor General's functions under the Local Government Act 1999 in respect of best value authorities in Wales under the Wales programme for improvement, to which I referred earlier. The amendment would prevent the Assembly from exempting by order a best value authority from certain requirements under the programme for improvement. That would take away a power that is available to the Assembly under the Local Government Act. As I understand it, the exemption is not in the sense of a relaxation of best value authority responsibilities. The power would be exercised if the Assembly had fundamental doubts about the exercise of a function by a best value authority and was contemplating making alternative arrangements. The Assembly has not had cause to exercise the power, but that does not detract from its validity and the Assembly's desire to
 maintain it. I trust that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be appropriate to limit the Assembly's powers in this way.
 Under amendment No. 40, the Auditor General would not be required to have regard to a recommendation by the best value authority's auditor, or to Assembly guidelines, in reaching a decision on whether to undertake an inspection of a best value authority's compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Act. However, he would be required to have regard to those matters in undertaking an inspection. It is equally appropriate for him to take account of an auditor's recommendation and guidance in coming to a decision on whether to undertake an inspection, as is currently the case. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked, in particular, how the Auditor General can decide whether to carry out an inspection, because the Secretary of State can direct him to do so. The Auditor General may decide himself to carry out an inspection, or be directed to do so by the Secretary of State. The option is there. Following that explanation, I hope the hon. Gentleman feels comfortable about withdrawing the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: We have dealt with the fact that the Auditor General may himself decide to investigate, or may be ordered to do so by the Secretary of State. I suspect that if the Secretary of State orders it, he must do so and cannot make his own decision not to. That is fine.
 Amendment No. 39 is designed to find out why the National Assembly for Wales would exempt an authority. The Minister said that that is one of its powers, which is right, and that the amendment would undermine that. However, before I withdraw the amendment, I would like to know why the Assembly should ever want to exempt an authority. I am sure he will be able to tell me now.

Don Touhig: As I understand it, this is not an exemption in the sense of a relaxation of the best value authority's responsibility. The power would be exercised if the Assembly had fundamental doubts about the exercise of a function by a best value authority and was contemplating making alternative arrangements. The Assembly has not had cause to exercise that power, but it should not be removed because it is valid and may be needed at some point.

Bill Wiggin: I am happy with that and grateful to the Minister for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 56

Clause 54Restriction on disclosure of information

Restriction on disclosure of information

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 35, line 25, leave out '145B or'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 51.

Don Touhig: Due to the discussions that we have had right from the beginning of consideration—through pre-legislative scrutiny to Second Reading—I have no doubt that clause 54 is the part of the Bill that will exercise a great deal of interest. What the Government seek to do through the amendments might help to assuage some fears that have been expressed about the clause's ability to prevent disclosure of information.
 The Government have worked to achieve consistency in the treatment of section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and clause 54. The clause will apply the restriction on disclosure of information to value-for-money studies undertaken at the request of education bodies under proposed new section 145B of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which we touched on earlier. Studies in respect of such education bodies are not covered by section 49 of the Audit Commission Act and the amendments will bring the provisions into line. As the studies are at a body's request, the release of information will be governed by the normal laws of confidentiality and the terms of the agreement between the parties.

Bill Wiggin: I rushed off to get the Government of Wales Act 1998, but I could not find section 145B. I can find section 45(6)(b), but that does not fit with the line of argument. When was the Act amended and what is the correct wording?

Don Touhig: I think the hon. Gentleman is confused because section 145B is a proposed new section to be inserted by the Bill in the Government of Wales Act. That is why it is not there yet.

Win Griffiths: I think everybody is happy now.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 51, in clause 54, page 35, line 39, leave out '145B(3) or'.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: This is the most contentious part of the Bill. We call for the deletion of the clause as it restricts the disclosure of information and issues criminal sanctions for non-compliance. As I said on Second Reading, we are aware that the Government are unhappy with the clause and have gone some way to amend it, but such amendments and assurances have not gone far enough to ensure the protection of whistleblowers, who should not feel intimidated and unsafe in a free society.
 In expecting us to trust them that clause 54 will be amended once section 49 of the Audit Commission Act is amended in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Government must believe that we would 
 never expect them to make a U-turn. However, they know as well as we do that that is by no means a certainty. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats think it acceptable to agree to such a controversial and worrying clause on the Government's word. Discussing clause 54 on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said: 
 ''I am optimistic about the Government's willingness to alter that . . . I trust them on the matter and can envisage no reason why they would renege on something for which they have accepted the arguments''. —[Official Report, 17 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 943.] 
I am surprised and disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have given up on this clause so easily, and I am sure that whistleblowers throughout Wales and those who believe in a free society will be too. The Conservatives, however, will maintain pressure on the Government to delete it because we need to know how the Audit Commission Act and then the clause will be amended before this Bill is enacted. 
 The conduct of locally elected authorities must be transparent and totally above board. The restriction of disclosure in the clause implies that a body with something to hide must be protected from the public. We maintain that it is wrong in principle to apply criminal sanctions for the disclosure of information. I am concerned that the provision for criminal sanctions will deter whistleblowers from disclosing information on issues other than those exceptions in subsection (2) on local government audit for fear of being treated more harshly than for disclosure relating to any other public sector audit. 
 Will the Minister tell the Committee under what circumstances the Government consider criminal sanctions appropriate for the disclosure of information? On Report in the other place, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting said that 
''the Government are worried about the clause and wish to solve the problem. As I described, the only way to solve it is to place before both Houses towards the end of the year an order that gives us, we hope, the result that I suspect that we all want.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1480.] 
What is the end result that the Government want? If it is that there is no restriction on the disclosure of information relating to local government audit, they must amend both the Freedom of Information Act and section 49 of the Audit Commission Act before this Bill is put on the statute book. Otherwise, they must agree to delete clause 54. If they placed a bar on the clause being brought into force, that would at least prevent the anomaly of there being, for a short time, different law on the statute book, as the amendments would not have been accepted. 
 Will the Minister tell us whether there is a precedent for a Bill being passed on a promise that it will be amended once on the statute book? As it stands, we cannot leave this unacceptable clause in the Bill on such a promise. We need certainties about potential changes, which I hope he will give us. If not, the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Hywel Williams: In another place, on behalf Plaid Cymru, Lord Elis-Thomas noted the anxiety that has been expressed about the clause and its potential impact. I have taken heed of the Minister's assurances given on Second Reading and I am sure that he will tell
 us today that there is a strong probability that the Government will act in the way he described. The clause would act as a disincentive for whistleblowers, so I am interested in what he has to say now.

Roger Williams: We, too, have great concerns about clause 54, and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has asked the Government for greater assurance that their amendments will protect whistleblowers. We are not yet convinced that their amendments will protect whistleblowers to the extent that we want.

Don Touhig: I am conscious that clause 54 has been the most contentious part of the Bill since pre-legislative scrutiny and our giving of evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, when it was clause 50 in the draft Bill.
 Hon. Members will know that I do not want to be partisan in any way, and I take no personal issue with the hon. Member for Leominster, but I find it difficult to understand the Conservatives. When, as a Back Bencher, I introduced a Bill to protect whistleblowers, the hon. Gentleman's party and Government did everything they could to wreck it and succeeded, but now they are the whistleblower's friend. However, like St. Paul on the road to Damascus, a conversion will benefit us all, and we welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to protecting the interests of whistleblowers. 
 Clause 54 restricts the disclosure of information obtained during a local government audit or study by an auditor or the Auditor General, albeit with widely cast exceptions. Clause 54 is an equivalent provision to section 49 of the Audit Commission Act. Hon. Members may remember that on Second Reading I referred to clause 54(2), which lists a number of exceptions to restrictions on disclosing information, and I have written to a number of right hon. and hon. Members on the matter in recent months. The exceptions in the Bill that permit disclosure cover matters relating to best value, fraud, the work of the ombudsman, the discharge of social service functions—an important issue that caused recent media interest—education, best value, social landlords and crime. 
 The Welsh Affairs Committee, the National Assembly for Wales and the Auditor General recommended that the clause should be deleted, but the Audit Commission and the Welsh Local Government Association argued for it to be retained because it provides a safeguard against the inappropriate or premature release of information. 
 As I said on Second Reading, I fully understand that there should be no impediment to the legitimate disclosure of information. The Freedom of Information Act is clear evidence of the Government's commitment to that cause. As we debated this morning, the Government consider that there should not be undue inconsistency between England and Wales in the criminal law on the inappropriate release of information. That would be the case if clause 54 
 were deleted and section 49 of the Audit Commission Act remained in force—a matter would not be an offence in Wales but would be in England. 
 The Government have listened to the concerns expressed during pre-legislative scrutiny and by Opposition parties and others in the House and the other place during the Bill's passage, and we have made amendments to clause 54. They will enable the Bill to be amended further after enactment to reflect the outcome of a general review undertaken by the Department for Constitutional Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act of existing statutory bars to the disclosure of information. 
 The Government have announced their intention to amend section 49 of the Audit Commission Act as a result of the review. I made a ministerial statement to that effect, which was laid before both Houses of Parliament on 24 March. The amendment will overturn the existing presumption in section 49 against disclosure, and change it to one in favour of disclosure, which we all wish to see and is wholly consistent with the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. The amendment will be made by order before the end of the year. A comparable amendment should then be made to clause 54 once the Bill is enacted. It is not possible to link the two amendments in the order, but they will run parallel, and both seek the same objective. 
 Freedom of information legislation is complex and it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the detailed drafting of the section 75 order that will carry into effect the pledge that I gave on Second Reading and am repeating today. That said, the practical effect of the proposals is that information obtained by the Audit Commission or an auditor during the course of an audit or study, and held by any public authority, could be disclosed by that public authority in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. Where the same information is held by any organisation not subject to the Act, it would also be entitled to disclose it subject to a limited number of exceptions. At present, such information is subject to an absolute exemption from disclosure under the Act. 
 A person or body would be able to make a formal request to any public authority for information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The presumption in favour of permitting disclosure by a public authority or its staff would not be limited to formal requests for information under the Act. Section 75 orders allow for ancillary provisions and it is proposed that the amendment to section 49 would also cover the voluntary release of such information—proactive disclosure—not related to formal requests, provided it was not inappropriate. 
 On Second Reading, I undertook to give right hon. and hon. Members any additional information I could on work being undertaken to amend the clause. I can now reveal to the Committee that the Government have agreed to drop the imprisonment sanction from section 49 of the Audit Commission Act. That also means that it can be deleted from clause 54 once the 
 Bill is enacted. I cannot give firm details as to when that will be done because the Government need to give further consideration to the matter, but it will be at the earliest opportunity. We all feel that if we change the presumption of the clause from being against to in favour of disclosure, it would be inappropriate to have the same degree of sanction for any breach—perhaps a fine might be more appropriate. 
 It is not entirely clear whether our intention can be accomplished through the section 75 order. However, I hope that that demonstrates the Government's determination to make clause 54 as open and proportionate as possible, but in a structured way. It has been said that much has been taken on trust in respect of future amendments to the clause. However, the record of our proceedings in this and previous debates will be there for all to see and I would not give undertakings if the Government were not committed to taking the matter forward, as I explained. 
 Several points were made in our brief debate. The hon. Gentleman said that clause 54 is dangerous for whistleblowers; as I said on Second Reading, the Auditor General is a prescribed person for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was based on a Bill that I introduced, which was thwarted by the Conservatives when they were in office. Genuinely concerned whistleblowers can make information available to the Auditor General without breaching anything in clause 54, which promotes only the disclosure of information obtained by the Auditor General or an auditor. A local government whistleblower could disclose other information in his or her possession related to the finances of the authority without breaching the clause. 
 The hon. Member for Leominster asked whether there was a precedent for a Bill being passed on the premise that it will be amended. I am not sure whether there is such a precedent; the Government are not afraid to seek innovative solutions to problems, and I believe that the solution that we propose will satisfy everyone if it can proceed as the Government have pledged that it will. 
 I hope that the fears of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be assuaged with those few remarks. The Government are determined to make the appropriate amendments. 
 The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the Bill being enacted, and the amendments to section 75 orders not being made. I remind him of a point that I made on Second Reading: clause 22 deals with immediate and other reports of a public interest. Clause 22(1) states: 
 ''In auditing accounts of a body under this Chapter, an auditor must consider whether, in the public interest, he should make a report on any matter which comes to his notice in the course of the audit, in order for it to be— 
 (a) considered by the body, or 
 (b) brought to the attention of the public.'' 
Subsection (3) makes the position clear. It states: 
 ''If the auditor considers that the public interest requires the matter to be made the subject of an immediate report, he must make the report immediately.''
Having said all that about the ''sanctions'' in clause 54 until it is amended, there is still the fall-back position that if an auditor believes that there is a matter to be made public in the public interest, he or she has the power to make that information available. I hope that hon. Members' fears have been assuaged. I am asking the House of Commons to take the Government on trust, but I would not have said what I did if we were not determined to implement the proposals.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, especially about removing imprisonment from the list of sanctions. I am aware that he is the whistleblowers' friend from his history. As I understand it, he said that his intention to drop the imprisonment sanction may not be possible to carry out under a section 75 order. I accept that the Minister has set himself quite a challenge, but he has the opportunity before Third Reading to ensure that the Committee knows whether it will be possible for him to do what he said he would. Therefore it is not appropriate for us to press the amendment to a Division. What the Government have done is extremely constructive; I recognise that they also want transparency and clarity in the Bill. I am grateful that we have made some progress today. The idea that the Liberal Democrats were quite so compliant came from the following remark by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on Second Reading:
 ''Perhaps I am simply an optimist or willing to trust the Minister because he has an honest face''.——[Official Report, 17 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 943.] 
We should trust the Minister because he repeatedly said that he would do something, rather than because of the honesty of his face. We should wait and see whether it can be done. It would be of great comfort to the Committee if the Minister could write to us about the section 75 orders.

Don Touhig: If it helps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, I said on Second Reading that if I had any further information when we reached consideration in Committee, I would reveal it. I have kept that promise: I have been able to reveal that the Government are considering the removal of the prison sanction for any breach of the clause. By Report, or Third Reading, if I have further information on how we will take this forward—with or without a section 75 order—I will ensure that hon. Members are made aware of it.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and do not want him to row back from what he has already said today. It is fair to say that there is a question mark over how the Government will proceed. It is important, while we scrutinise the Bill, that we do our best to nail down what will happen. I know that the Minister will provide us with that information if he can, but I want to put the marker down that we will need that information if we are to support the Bill. Otherwise, we will be faced with the extraordinary situation in which, for a period of time, the rules in Wales will be different from the way that the Government want them to be. When the amendments to the other pieces of legislation then go through—
 again, the Committee has not seen how those amendments will be worded—there will be a complete change in the nature of the Bill. It is therefore important that we get as much information as we can. I know that the Minister is doing everything that he can, and I am grateful for that. I hope that he will continue to keep us fully informed on the mechanics of the matter.

Don Touhig: It is not intended that the Bill—assuming that Parliament approves it—should be enacted until 2005. I am not being complacent about the amount of time left, but we hope to have sufficient time to introduce the amendments that I suggested.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - Publication of information by Auditor General for Wales

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 36, line 42, leave out '(1)(b), (c) or (d)' and insert '(1)(a), (b) or (c)'.
 The amendment corrects a typographical error in clause 56(2)—[Interruption.] Unfortunately we cannot get the proofreaders these days. The subsection should read: 
 ''The information that may be published under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c)'' 
and not ''(1)(b), (c) or (d)'', as currently drafted. The exclusion should relate only to information about public interest reports, and not to information about contraventions of the accounts and audit regulations to be made under clause 39. It is consistent with the provisions of sections 51 and 12 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. I commend the amendment to the Committee. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 57 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60 - Meaning of ''Welsh NHS body''

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 2—Prevention of unlawful expenditure— 
 'If the Auditor General for Wales has reason to believe that a Welsh NHS body or an officer of such a body— 
 (a) is about to make, or has made, a decision which involves or would involve the incurring of expenditure which is unlawful;
 (b) is about to take, or has taken, a course of action which, if pursued to a conclusion, would be unlawful and likely to cause a loss or deficiency, 
 he shall refer the matter forthwith to the Assembly.'.

Bill Wiggin: The new clause concerns the audit regime for NHS bodies in Wales. We welcome the fact that the Government have not simply copied the existing arrangements for health bodies, as they have done for most of the Bill, but have instead given the Auditor General fuller auditing responsibilities in the audit regime. However, some useful existing provisions have been excluded.
 Under the existing legislation the health body auditor is allowed to act if he believes that unlawful expenditure is about to be incurred and needs to be looked into. The auditor can carry out an extraordinary audit, and the Secretary of State can call for one. Those provisions prevent problems from getting out of control. However, there are no such useful provisions in the Bill with regard to health bodies. That sets up differences between not only England and Wales but between health bodies and local authority bodies in Wales. The amendment is a version of section 19 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, which would restore the current position for health bodies.

Don Touhig: New clause 2 would require the Auditor General to refer any matter relating to unlawful or potentially unlawful expenditure on the part of a NHS body in Wales to the National Assembly. The Government believe that it is unnecessary for the following reasons. Clause 60 gives the Auditor General statutory responsibility for the financial audit of Welsh NHS bodies. His statutory responsibility would be the same as it is now for the National Assembly and its sponsored bodies. The audit process that applies would also be the same.
 An item of public expenditure would result in a qualification to an NHS body's accounts as it does now to other bodies for which the Auditor General has statutory audit responsibilities. He would publish a report in respect of the qualification and lay the report before the National Assembly. 
 In accordance with Standing Order 12.5, the Audit Committee of the National Assembly would meet to consider the circumstances surrounding the qualification. In doing so, it would take evidence from relevant officials with financial accountability responsibilities. The Committee would issue a report with its conclusions and recommendations, to which the Assembly Administration, in liaison with the NHS body concerned, would be required to respond within a set time scale, currently 30 working days. 
 Any potentially unlawful expenditure or unlawful decision would, as a matter of course, be brought to the attention of the NHS body's accountable officer and the National Assembly accounting officer for the NHS in Wales. With that explanation, the hon. Gentleman may feel that his new clause is not needed.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. If he is satisfied that an order to prevent illegal expenditure is not necessary, I hope that he is right. I do not wish to press the matter any further, but it is an important point to make during the drafting of the Bill. I feel that I have fulfilled my role in drawing it to the Committee's attention.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 61 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Minor and consequential amendments

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 56, line 8, at end insert— 
'(c) the functions of the Auditor General for Wales under sections 41 and 42 of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill 2004.'.
 The amendment is an alternative to our new clause after clause 42, and would ensure that if the Auditor General does not have the power to study English bodies, the Audit Commission will, at the very least, have a duty to co-operate in respect of the functions of the Auditor General under clauses 41 and 42. I suspect that the Audit Commission will co-operate, but it does not necessarily have a duty to do so, so we are pressing for that here.

Don Touhig: Amendment No. 44, which would affect the Audit Commission Act, would require the Audit Commission to co-operate with the Auditor General, where appropriate, for the efficient and effective discharge of the latter's functions in respect of undertaking studies under clauses 41 and 42. The Bill gives the Auditor General and the Commission various reciprocal duties to co-operate, as we have discussed earlier. It requires them to co-operate in respect of studies that they would initiate themselves, under clauses 41 and 42 and under sections 33 and 34 of the Audit Commission Act respectively.
 Those duties are contained in clause 43, and paragraph 34 of schedule 2—the provision that would be subject to amendment. In those provisions, the requirement to co-operate rests with the initiator of the study. The intention is that, in proposing a study, each would consult and co-operate with the other in terms of timing, exchange of relevant information and the potential for joint working in so far as they consider it necessary and appropriate. 
 The Bill also gives a mutual duty to the Auditor General for Wales and the Audit Commission to provide each other with any information that they reasonably require to make comparisons between English and Welsh bodies when undertaking studies of those bodies. That provision was inserted in another place after representations from the Opposition parties and was found to be quite helpful. The duty is in clause 57, and paragraph 34 of schedule 2. 
 The Government have not imposed a duty on the Audit Commission and the Auditor General to co-operate with each other's studies other than by the exchange of information. Our firm expectation is that 
 regulatory and audit bodies such as the commission and the Auditor General will collaborate closely on work of cross-border interest. The Bill encourages them to do so, and the evidence submitted by both parties during pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill demonstrated a clear willingness to do so. However, a duty would create operational difficulties in matters such as forward work planning, and could ultimately have a restrictive effect. 
 The hon. Gentleman touched again on cross-border duties. Logically, a duty for the Audit Commission would require a reciprocal duty for the Auditor General in respect of commission work, which could fetter the latter's discretion to organise the work as he sees fit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is content with that explanation.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. This is a missed opportunity and a waste, but it is not a critical missed opportunity, so there seems little purpose in pushing the Government further at this stage, although with hindsight it would have been helpful if the duty had been included. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to. 
 Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to. 
 Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Welsh NHS bodies

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 41, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
 This probing amendment would delete clause 70(2), which deals with transitional provisions. The amendment is designed to find out the length of current appointments of local authority auditors under the Audit Commission Act 1998 before new appointments are made under clause 13. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the purpose of the Bill, which is to put the Auditor General in charge of local authority audits in Wales, cannot be frustrated.

Don Touhig: The amendment would remove continuity of audit arrangements in the transition to the new arrangements under the Bill. Clauses 69 and 70 provide for appointments of auditors already made by the Audit Commission for local government bodies and NHS bodies in Wales to remain in force when the Bill comes into force. The appointments will continue in force until they expire under their own terms. From the date of the relevant provisions of the Bill coming into force, existing local government-appointed auditors will be regarded as having been appointed by the Auditor General. Existing NHS-appointed auditors will be regarded as exercising the statutory audit functions of the Auditor General. That is a sensible and pragmatic arrangement. It will provide
 client bodies with continuity and avoid any contractual difficulties that may arise through the early termination of appointments.
 Under the amendment, existing contracts would have to end when the Bill came into force. The Auditor General would have to undertake an extensive, costly and time-consuming procurement exercise to make new appointments, potentially of the same auditors, to take effect on the first day of the Wales Audit Office's operation. That would be on top of other preparatory work required to ensure that the office runs effectively from the outset. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister will recognise that we do not wish the Auditor General to be frustrated by existing auditors. As long as he is confident that that will not happen, I am content. It is important that existing auditors continue in the form that he outlined. I recognise the inadequacy of the amendment, but I emphasise that it was a probing amendment to find out whether the Auditor General would be frustrated. The Minister has assured me that he will not, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 4 agreed to. 
 Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Short title

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 42, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
 This is the amendment always required when a Bill starts its passage in another place. It removes the privilege amendment, which is routinely inserted in another place to avoid encroachment on the privilege of those in this House to control charges on public funds. A money resolution was passed immediately after Second Reading in this House on 17 June. Thus the Commons have exercised their privilege and the subsection is no longer needed. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Power to send for persons

'Section 74 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38) (establishment of office of Auditor General for Wales), after subsection (4) insert—
 'and may require any person, whose presence is relevant to a report submitted by the Auditor General for Wales to the Audit Committee, to attend the Audit Committee, give evidence and produce documents as required.'.—[Hywel Williams.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Hywel Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The Committee will know of my keenness to ensure that the Audit Committee of the National Assembly is kept as fully informed as possible, and can be as effective as possible. The new clause aims to ensure that the Audit Committee can require anyone 
''relevant to a report submitted by the Auditor General . . . to attend the Audit Committee, give evidence and produce documents as required.'' 
That is a sensible step that will enable the Committee to carry out its functions properly. I have no doubt that in the ordinary course of events, such a power would not be needed or used. However, it should be there if so needed. Furthermore, it would be indicative of the importance that the Government and the National Assembly attach to the work of the Audit Committee. As I said earlier, the Audit Committee has worked co-operatively on a cross-party basis, and has already saved the Welsh taxpayer about £90 million. 
 The new clause would amend section 74 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and allow the Audit Committee to call people who are relevant to a report submitted by the Auditor General for Wales to the Audit Committee. It would allow the body accountable for auditing in the Assembly to follow the money to its end point. Being able to call witnesses is an important power of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am sure that no hon. Members would want that power to be taken away. The Audit Committee needs a similar power to do its job properly. 
 I also note that the Public Accounts Committee retains responsibility for some areas of expenditure in Wales, can call witnesses and can have access to documents in London, but the Audit Committee in Cardiff carrying out a similar function cannot do so. The body charged with auditing expenditure on devolved matters does not have the power to call witnesses to Cardiff, which is unjustifiable. I seek reassurance from the Minister about the importance that the UK Government attaches to the Audit Committee in Cardiff, and to enabling it to do its work properly.

Don Touhig: The intention of new clause 3 appears to be to give the Assembly's Audit Committee the power to require a wider class of persons to attend to give evidence and produce documents. That power would be limited only by the requirement that the person's attendance be relevant to the Auditor General's report that the Audit Committee is considering.
 Under the present section 95 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which deals with the Auditor General's existing right of access to documents and information, the Auditor General is entitled to all documents relating to the accounts of any relevant person. For example, if the Auditor General is conducting an audit of a body mentioned in schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act, the documents 
 relating to that body's accounts may or may not be in the hands of a person who is a member of or a member of staff of that body. 
 Section 74 of the Government of Wales Act permits the summoning only of persons who are members of or members of staff of bodies or offices mentioned in schedules 4 and 5 of that Act. Consequently, there is already a difference between the categories of persons who may be holding or controlling a relevant document and the categories of persons who may be summoned to appear before the Audit Committee. That is because the Audit Committee is principally concerned with having before it the relevant members or members of staff of the body about which the Auditor General for Wales has prepared his report, so that those persons can be questioned on the report. 
 I echo what the hon. Member for Caernarfon said about the fact that the work of the Audit Committee in the Assembly has been first class. We recognise that, and there are lessons to be learned for government throughout the United Kingdom from the openness and transparency with which things have been done in Cardiff. We could all reflect on the benefits of that in a wider context. 
 Extending the Audit Committee's power as the new clause proposes may result in an increased regulatory burden. Having already been subject to the wider powers of access of the Auditor General, a person may become subject to attendance before the Audit Committee. The attendance of witnesses is covered by National Assembly Standing Orders, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is the most appropriate way of dealing with the issue. My understanding is that there have been no problems in practice. 
 I do not want to seem as if I am dismissing the valid points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but before considering the new clause, it would have to be demonstrated to me that there is a problem in the existing operation. I am not satisfied that such a problem exists, so I invite him to withdraw the new clause.

Hywel Williams: I take the Minister's point, although I already said that problems would not arise in the ordinary course of events, and I was glad to hear his words about the value of the Committee's work. On the basis of those two points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Don Touhig: I thank you, Mr. Griffiths, on behalf of all members of the Committee, for the excellent way in which you have chaired today's proceedings. The fact that we have completed our deliberations by four o'clock is down to your patience, guidance and good humour. I should also like to thank all members of the Committee for their contributions. We have had a good standard of debate.
 Opposition Members made an important contribution to the smooth running of the process. The hon. Member for Leominster has done sterling work 
 and has been up to the task. The information I was able to impart about the Government's intention to seek to remove the prison sanction for a breach of clause 54 will enable him to face his colleagues in the other House; he has gained as much by probing and pressing as they did. 
 The hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Brecon and Radnorshire also made important contributions. We have completed our deliberations in record time. My especial thanks go to my hon. Friends for their contribution in speeding up the process and ensuring that we have completed our business. I also extend my thanks to the Doorkeepers. I am sure that they are pleased that ensuring that the doors were locked for Divisions proved not to be too great a task. My thanks go also to the police, the Clerks and the Officers for helping us carry out our business today. 
 We have gone through the Bill fairly quickly, but there have been good speeches and good debates. That demonstrates the value of pre-legislative scrutiny. A great deal of work had already been done in the pre-legislative stage, which helped the Government to make changes and amendments to the Bill before it came before us for final consideration. We all recognise the value of that. It is down to us. Certainly the pre-legislative scrutiny carried out by the Welsh Affairs Committee on Wales-only Bills has been of great value to us all in ensuring that we make better legislation. 
 Our warmest thanks go to you, Mr. Griffiths. I do not know if we will sit under your chairmanship again before you retire—perhaps you know the date of the general election. Certainly if we are fortunate enough to do so I have no doubt that we will see our business progress in a good and useful way, which will ensure that as legislators we are seen to do our best on behalf of the people whom we represent.

Bill Wiggin: Let me echo the Minister's kind words to you, Mr. Griffiths. I, too, am grateful to you for your excellent chairmanship, and to the Doorkeepers, the police, the Clerks and everyone who has worked so hard to ensure that the Bill is successful.
 The Minister made a valuable point when he said that much of the work that had been to improve the Bill was done at the pre-legislative stage. Obviously we all pay tribute to the Select Committee for their work. The most important thing about pre-legislative scrutiny is that the Government listen. That is probably the key lesson from this. The Government have been listening during today's Committee stage, 
 during the Bill's passage in the other place, and during the pre-legislative scrutiny. They put their mind to delivering the best possible Bill for the people of Wales. I am glad that we have all been able to contribute in some small way to improving that. 
 That leads me to thank the Minister for changing the prison sanctions in the Bill. He is right to say that it is always worrying for the Opposition when a Bill finishes more quickly than usual, but it has been important that we demonstrate not only that this is a Bill that the Assembly asked for, but that we want it to go through in the best possible form. We have all done our best today to ensure that that happens. I echo the Minister's thanks to you, Mr. Griffiths, and to everyone who has contributed.

Hywel Williams: I thank you, Mr. Griffiths for chairing the Committee with your usual courtesy and expertise. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leominster, who has shouldered most of the burden for the Opposition. He has been standing up and sitting down quite a lot today; I hope that his knees stand the pace.
 I also thank the Minister, especially in relation to clause 54; I was glad to hear the news about that proposal, because there has been cause for concern, and to hear what he said today and on Second Reading. I am sure we are all glad that the Bill has gone through its Committee stage so quickly. 
 I noticed as I came into Committee Room 12 that Committee Rooms now have names. This Room is named after a distinguished Prime Minister and Member of the Upper House, and is known as the Grey Room, which is a misnomer as our debates on the Bill have been entertaining and colourful.

Roger Williams: I, too, echo the thanks already expressed for your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths, and for the contributions of everyone who made the Committee stage so successful. The Welsh Affairs Committee is already carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny on the draft Transport (Wales) Bill, using an innovative method and working more closely the National Assembly for Wales, which augurs well for future work. I look forward to that Bill going through the House. It has a fair amount of support among the parties represented in this Committee, and it will raise interesting issues, which we look forward to discussing.
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at twelve minutes past Four o'clock.